BMW Of North America LLC v. Carrum Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00902
• Patent #: 7,512,475
• Filed: April 20, 2019
• Petitioner(s): BMW of North America, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Carrum Technologies, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and Non Threat Target Rejection
• Brief Description: The ’475 patent describes a method and system for an adaptive cruise control (ACC) equipped vehicle to manage speed during turns. The system detects a turn by monitoring for changes in the vehicle's lateral acceleration and reduces speed accordingly, while also identifying and ignoring objects that are not in the vehicle's path.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, and 5 are obvious over Winner in view of Schmitt

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657) and Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Winner disclosed an ACC system for controlling vehicle speed and detecting objects in the vehicle's path, particularly in curves. However, Winner did not explicitly teach using a change in lateral acceleration to detect the turn itself. Petitioner contended that Schmitt supplied this missing element by teaching a traction control system that ascertains curve entry and exit by monitoring for changes in lateral acceleration. Schmitt also taught reducing vehicle speed when lateral acceleration exceeds a predetermined limit to improve vehicle stability. The combination of Winner's ACC framework with Schmitt's turn detection and speed reduction logic allegedly met all limitations of independent claim 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to solve a known problem, which was acknowledged in the ’475 patent’s specification as Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). This problem was that prior art ACC systems often maintained excessive speed in turns, leading to high lateral acceleration and a potential loss of control. Combining Schmitt's turn detection method with Winner's ACC functionality was presented as a predictable solution to improve safety and performance in curves.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was predictable because both references operated in the same field of automotive control systems and used common sensor data. Petitioner asserted that integrating Schmitt’s turn-detection logic into Winner’s ACC framework would predictably yield the expected result of a more curve-aware and safer cruise control system.

Ground 2: Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over Winner, Schmitt, and Ishizu

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924), and Ishizu (Application # 2001/0044691).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: These dependent claims added limitations related to calculating lateral acceleration using vehicle speed and yaw rate data. While the base combination of Winner and Schmitt taught the core method of claim 1, Petitioner asserted that Ishizu provided the specific teachings for these calculations. Ishizu disclosed a vehicle speed control system that explicitly calculated lateral acceleration (lateral-G) using data from yaw-rate and vehicle speed sensors to adjust speed on curved roads. This directly taught the additional calculation steps recited in claims 2 and 3.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Winner and Schmitt to create a curve-aware ACC system, would look for known and reliable methods to obtain the necessary lateral acceleration data. Petitioner argued that Ishizu taught a direct and well-understood method for doing so using readily available sensor inputs (yaw rate, vehicle speed), making it an obvious implementation choice for the primary system.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was expected to succeed, as Ishizu provided a well-understood, formulaic approach to derive lateral acceleration. This calculation could be directly integrated into the control logic of the Winner/Schmitt system without undue experimentation.

Ground 3: Claims 10-12 are obvious over Winner, Schmitt, and Khodabhai

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Winner (Application # 2002/0165657), Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924), and Khodabhai (Patent 5,959,569).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: These dependent claims, which depend from independent claim 6, added limitations for detecting an object by measuring its range, range rate, and angle, as well as determining the vehicle's path radius of curvature. Petitioner argued that Khodabhai taught these specific object-detection and path-determination steps. Khodabhai disclosed a collision avoidance system that used a radar sensor to measure an object's range, relative velocity (range rate), and azimuth angle, and calculated the vehicle's radius of curvature to determine if the object was in the vehicle's path.
  • Motivation to Combine: To enhance the object detection capabilities of the core Winner/Schmitt system, particularly for distinguishing in-path from out-of-path targets in a curve, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the more sophisticated methods taught by Khodabhai. This directly addressed the known problem of ACC systems unnecessarily braking for non-threatening stationary objects, a problem also described in the ’475 patent’s specification.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that integrating Khodabhai's detailed object and path analysis into the combined Winner/Schmitt system was a predictable improvement. All references dealt with processing common vehicle sensor data (radar, accelerometers) to control vehicle behavior, making their teachings compatible.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Applicant Admitted Prior Art, but relied on similar arguments for combining the core references.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be improper because a key reference, Winner, was only listed in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. As Winner was never used by the Examiner as a basis for rejection, Petitioner contended the Patent Office did not substantively consider the art or arguments presented in the petition, making review appropriate.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 7,512,475 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.